What do you think of characters not knowing each other at the beginning of the game

[Darth Ultron]

Do y'all have similar ethical issues with and revolution towards parents who don't tell children that they're eating something that they "hate" until after they've had the opportunity to tell how much they loved it?

It is wrong to treat children and adults the same.

Everyone is constantly being experimented on and observed.

Not by normal people.

And sometimes even actively lied to. I fail to see why you would object to - of all things - the GM knowing the character's secrets, and getting their ignorance of human behavior removed by observing how players react differently to secrets that they, too, know than they do to ones that they are unaware of. Especially in comparison to the bulk of human behavior, which is generally far less benevolent.

Except your talking about pointless fluff secrets, right? Ones that have no mechanical game effect or role playing game effect? So it utterly does not matter.

Actually that one is neither practice or experiment, but it is something I have learned from experience.

From experience I can say that having the characters not know each other at the start of the game play is often a bad idea. I have done this hundreds of times. All too often it leads to a group of solo games where the players down right refuse to do anything with any other player as they ''don't know that player's character''. The end result is a game where nothing happens and on one has fun. But a simple thing like ''all your characters grew up together and know each other'', and suddenly the players will play the game as a group.

Even when the 'unknown characters' works out, it still often wastes hours of game time as the characters ''get to know each other''. Some people do think that is the ''best role playing 4ever!", but I see it as a huge waste of time. I would much rather be keep deep in an adventure with everyone participating, then just sitting there and listing to a player done on about the novel they wrote for their character.

The only way 'unknown characters' really workout is when they are something like all part of a group so they ''have to'' work together.

I also disagree with the idea of a practice run

This really does not make sense in an RPG concept.You don't ''run a practice game'' to see if you like a character or setting or story or whatever. You just ''run a game''. In effect every game is a learning experience for everyone open to it for everything. And you can't really judge something like a character by just using them in a random game for a couple hours. You'd really need like a hundred hours and they would need to be personal game play where you used the character fully.

[MrSandman]

Do I have trust issues? Sure. But I have yet to encounter a sufficiently inhuman group for those issues to be unmerited. Humans' behavior demonstrably cannot fail to be tainted by information. I trust fire to burn, pain to hurt, and humans to fail in very human ways. Thus far, that last one seems the most reliable of the three.

Before I proceed with my post, let me say that I wholeheartedly agree with what you said about humans failing in very human ways.

Now that that's out of the way, the problem I find with your position is that you talk as if any other way of playing role-playing games is a mistake and a failure.

Human beings choose their accions on the basis of the information they've got available. That is completely true. But it is a feature, not a bug. Trying to "fix" it doesn't work. The problem, I daresay, with sharing secrets is that you assume that then you must play as if you didn't know them.

Spoiler: Why Keeping It Secret Does Not Solve It

Show

There is no real fix to the situation of "I don't want my character's actions to be tainted by metagame information," because by their very nature, a lot of what happens in a role-playing game happens at the metagame level.

For example, let's say that I've got a character who every once in a while goes off by himself to do something secret that nobody else knows about. One time, as he's wandering off, another character realises about it, so the player says, "I follow him stealthily" (and his roll succeeds). Now, all of a sudden I've decided that my character is not going to do his secret thing, because it isn't time for the great reveal yet. Bam, information has tainted the game.

I'm assuming that things like "I follow him stealthily" are said in the public, because otherwise it gets ridiculous pretty quickly to the point where the game master is game-mastering five different games that at some points intersect each other and everyone else is having their own private fantasy.

This is just an obvious example. One could find loads of other examples in which such metagaming doesn't happen (or at least isn't as apparent), I agree with that. My sole point is that there are too many things going on at the metagame level to pretend that it is possible to have a game in which metagame doesn't affect the game.

Let's go back to the premise that humans choose their actions based on the information that they've got available. I say, let's use it. Don't make a game where you say stuff that then everyone is supposed to pretend that they don't know. Have them involved and be part of it.

I can have everyone wondering why my character always gets nervous in front of soldiers, keeps her hood on in taverns, and is reluctant to go into big populations, or I can tell them, "Hey, my character is going to be a princess of a neighbouring kingdom. She'll be lying low because her uncle has usurped the throne that is rightfully hers." And that is a great opportunity for the game master to say, "That sounds cool. He'll probably have some people working on finding you either to bring you back or to assassinate you." And then another player may say, "Maybe my knight fought with your father, and he dearly respected him because he was a man of honour, so when I find out, I'll make it my duty to protect you." And then we can decide how this secret will affect the story and how it'll be revealed together.

I personally find that much more rewarding because it creates characters that have a story and a relationship to the world. They are somebody who live in the imaginary world and have ties to it. The alternative of having a character who is secretly a runaway princess without anyone knowing it just sounds like a recipe for disaster. A runaway princess must have consequences, how is the game master going to do anything about it if they don't know? The sheer "unrealism" of not having it have any effect whatsoever in the story because not even the game master knows it would kill all the appeal of said character for me.

So, back to my point. I understand that you may like a game that focuses more on creating quirky characters who have no ties whatsoever with the world and their background is totally secret so as to open the possibility of getting to know them. I get that. But that's just one way among many to play role-playing games. Making decisions based on meta-information is not wrong, having a background is not wrong, the game master (and/or other players) having the story take a particular turn based on your background is not wrong, and having other people chip in and use your background to help create a game together is not wrong. None of these things are wrong, or an abuse of power, or an abuse of trust, or anything that requires people to stop trusting other people. It is just something that can be used in right and wrong ways to enhance the group's experience.

[JoeJ]

You are correct - the "experiment" only demonstrates that there is a difference. I am the one explaining that my fun is enhanced by or dependent upon one and not the other.

And the bottom line is that it doesn't matter whether it enhances your fun or not. Manipulating people without their knowledge or consent is wrong. There are extreme cases where it is arguably the lesser evil, but making a game more fun is not one of them.

[Quertus]

Except your talking about pointless fluff secrets, right? Ones that have no mechanical game effect or role playing game effect? So it utterly does not matter.

"I am not left handed".

[JoeJ]

"I am not left handed".

GM: Yes you are. It says so right here on my copy of your character sheet.

<edit> It just occurred to me that this would actually work very well in Fate. Narrate that you're fighting with your off hand and use deceive (or sneaky in FAE) to create not left handed as an advantage that you can invoke in a future attack. Of course, you're not actually hiding anything from the other players, just the characters.

[Cluedrew]

So, you would call my "experiment" practice? Eh, it's something to test out very clearly opposed hypothesis ("my players won't react differently based on OOC information" "um, yes, they will"). It's arguably most akin to a wager, actually ("I'll bet you my ability to play characters with secrets on it"), although its purpose is less gamble and more educational, to facilitate an informed stance when discussing how to optimize the fun of the group.

... OK that kind of changes the appropriate word a bit, example is starting to come into focus. However as pointed out by others experiment carries a certain... formality that this lacks. What is your measurement error? Your control group? Your [insert other science words here as needed]? Of course on the other end of the scale:

You know, I'm honestly not sure what I'd consider the best campaigns I was in. I'll have to think about that. EDIT: for example, I greatly enjoyed the first adventure / campaign in which I played Armus. But was it technically good?

What do you mean by "technically good"? Did you and the other people at the table (yes including GM) have fun? Then it was a good game. The best game is then the one everyone had the most fun. You could break out more measurements and conditions, but I don't see why you would.

The bit in the middle about practice games is fine and I have nothing to add.

[Darth Ultron]

I can have everyone wondering why my character always gets nervous in front of soldiers, keeps her hood on in taverns, and is reluctant to go into big populations, or I can tell them, .

So this is a good example here. As part of the characters backstory they are a ''runaway from something'' and someone is looking for them. Ok, fine character back story.

1)You tell the other players the character back story. Then, in the game, when your character ''hides their face in a cloak'', the players know why it is being done and can say you are role playing your character. Everyone can participate in the role playing, as they know what is going on.

2)You keep it a secret from the other players. So now when you do something, at best other players just see you as hogging the spotlight and wasting time. They don't know your role playing your character, and just saying ''guys everything I do is ok" or whatever does not really cut it. Worse, you are only role playing with and for yourself: you are just forcing the other players to be your audience.

The worst here is where you really do want to hog the spotlight and every couple of minutes say a 'secret hint' as you want the other players to be curious and try to find out your secrets. And you will never tell them, haha, cue jerk power manipulation rush!

3)Keep it secret from everyone. So in most games this will mean whatever your secret is, it does not exist for real in the game as the DM does not know about it or approve it. So you can ''say to yourself'' your character is ''king of the world'', or whatever, but it won't be ''true'' in the world. So when your character encounters a royal guard...you can freak out to yourself and think that ''guard is looking for my character'', but you are just playing that game in your mind.

[Koo Rehtorb]

For example, let's say that I've got a character who every once in a while goes off by himself to do something secret that nobody else knows about. One time, as he's wandering off, another character realises about it, so the player says, "I follow him stealthily" (and his roll succeeds). Now, all of a sudden I've decided that my character is not going to do his secret thing, because it isn't time for the great reveal yet. Bam, information has tainted the game.

This seems like a particularly poor counter example. This would, in fact, be highly obnoxious if that player metagamed and didn't do it after all because he knew OOCly that he was being followed.

One would hope that you're not playing with players who are bad enough to do this, but if you were playing with bad players then yes, telling the GM secretly that you were following him would be the necessary step that you had to take, I suppose.

[Quertus]

And the bottom line is that it doesn't matter whether it enhances your fun or not. Manipulating people without their knowledge or consent is wrong. There are extreme cases where it is arguably the lesser evil, but making a game more fun is not one of them.

In what way do you perceive my position to involve manipulating people?

Before I proceed with my post, let me say that I wholeheartedly agree with what you said about humans failing in very human ways.

Cool. Thanks.

Now that that's out of the way, the problem I find with your position is that you talk as if any other way of playing role-playing games is a mistake and a failure.

Hmmm... that may be fair, if unintentional. I keep telling myself "I'll address other people's players next time", and never actually doing so. So, consider this a case of mms taking about my personal love of girls / cats / vanilla, and and my social skills / the internet making it seem like I'm demonizing love of boys / dogs / chocolate.

I know that I enjoy "rolling dice". Yes, it's a valid preference - do I really need to prove that? I do? Fine, have some proof. Now that I've demonstrated that it can make a difference to some people, allow me to restate that it makes a difference to me, so that we can get on with discussing the possibility of accommodating everyone's fun.

I can have everyone wondering why my character always gets nervous in front of soldiers, keeps her hood on in taverns, and is reluctant to go into big populations, or I can tell them, "Hey, my character is going to be a princess of a neighbouring kingdom. She'll be lying low because her uncle has usurped the throne that is rightfully hers." And that is a great opportunity for the game master to say, "That sounds cool. He'll probably have some people working on finding you either to bring you back or to assassinate you." And then another player may say, "Maybe my knight fought with your father, and he dearly respected him because he was a man of honour, so when I find out, I'll make it my duty to protect you." And then we can decide how this secret will affect the story and how it'll be revealed together.

Ah. I think I get people's objections now.

I'm not trying to say that that's not a valid way to play. Your princess is welcome to have her secrets revealed. Although, admittedly, it reduces my Exploration fun, so I ask that you not be a ****, and don't do so unless doing so adds to someone's fun.

Your princess, and your / the group's fun with her is part of why it's a discussion with the GM / group, not just me saying, "this easy is the only way". Admittedly, I'm not really accustomed to players working together to build a story the way you describe.

I try to build characters who are unlike your princess, whose story isn't prewritten, and who won't be so inherently influential and terribly missed as to automatically have nations hunting then.

[MrSandman]

This seems like a particularly poor counter example. This would, in fact, be highly obnoxious if that player metagamed and didn't do it after all because he knew OOCly that he was being followed.

Is it though? No one knows why your character goes off to walk by himself. If this one time he feeds some wild animal that he's keeping secretly instead of preparing his fix of a potent drug, nobody will ever know. I'm not saying it's mature behaviour, but it wouldn't be the worst I've seen. You can just make up (or choose to show) any other secret to preserve the one that you don't want discovered.

EDIT: On the other hand, you may be right. It's late and I'm tired. Tomorrow I'll give it a couple more spins in my head. I do agree that my example is a pretty immature response.

[MrSandman]

Hmmm... that may be fair, if unintentional. I keep telling myself "I'll address other people's players next time", and never actually doing so. So, consider this a case of mms taking about my personal love of girls / cats / vanilla, and and my social skills / the internet making it seem like I'm demonizing love of boys / dogs / chocolate.

I know that I enjoy "rolling dice". Yes, it's a valid preference - do I really need to prove that? I do? Fine, have some proof. Now that I've demonstrated that it can make a difference to some people, allow me to restate that it makes a difference to me, so that we can get on with discussing the possibility of accommodating everyone's fun.

Ah. I think I get people's objections now.

I'm not trying to say that that's not a valid way to play. Your princess is welcome to have her secrets revealed. Although, admittedly, it reduces my Exploration fun, so I ask that you not be a ****, and don't do so unless doing so adds to someone's fun.

Your princess, and your / the group's fun with her is part of why it's a discussion with the GM / group, not just me saying, "this easy is the only way". Admittedly, I'm not really accustomed to players working together to build a story the way you describe.

I try to build characters who are unlike your princess, whose story isn't prewritten, and who won't be so inherently influential and terribly missed as to automatically have nations hunting then.

We're cool now^^ I think we've reached a satisfactory understanding.

[JoeJ]

In what way do you perceive my position to involve manipulating people?

Did you not say that you keep secrets specifically so that the way the other players roleplay their characters (including NPCs) will not be tainted by OOC knowledge? That's manipulation, which is not acceptable behavior unless those other players consent to being manipulated that way.

[Quertus]

Did you not say that you keep secrets specifically so that the way the other players roleplay their characters (including NPCs) will not be tainted by OOC knowledge? That's manipulation, which is not acceptable behavior unless those other players consent to being manipulated that way.

So, wait, the Playgrounder's story, where he had to inform his fellow players of the concepts of role-playing and OOC information, where, just because the module had a vampire in the title, that wasn't information that they should be acting on - you don't view that as an issue for their ignorance, but for his unacceptable manipulation of the way that they play the game?

[ImNotTrevor]

As someone with scientific experience, I'm surprised to see moral arguments about official, documented, thoroughly scientifically rigorous experimentation applied to what is essentially the equivalent of "let's see what happens if I do this" sort of experimentation, which is much less formal and pretty much harmless. (With obvious stupid exceptions to that notion excluded.)

Quertus isn't talking about doing the Stanford Prison Experiment, here. He's talking about unofficially seeing how people behave when he does certain things. Which fits the 2nd definition of Experiment:
Try new things and see how it goes. (Paraphrased, obviously.)

Apparently no Linguistics or Communications scientists around here because nobody figured that out (at least not that I saw)


But this is one of those threads where people start spouting opinions and try to assert why their preference is objectively correct while the occassional reasonable person comes through to say that it depends on the situation and the group. The endless cycling of threads like these is why I so rarely post anymore. In most threads I know exactly what I'm going to see. This is it.

[JoeJ]

So, wait, the Playgrounder's story, where he had to inform his fellow players of the concepts of role-playing and OOC information, where, just because the module had a vampire in the title, that wasn't information that they should be acting on - you don't view that as an issue for their ignorance, but for his unacceptable manipulation of the way that they play the game?

Are you seriously trying to nitpick what is or isn't manipulation? Because that raises red flags with there.

I don't remember reading the story you're talking about, and I'm not going to go back through a long thread to find it. From what you're saying here, though, he informed the other players, which sure doesn't sound like something he could do without them being aware of it.

[Cluedrew]

But this is one of those threads where people start spouting opinions and try to assert why their preference is objectively correct while the occassional reasonable person comes through to say that it depends on the situation and the group.

Yeah, but the point is A) to be that occasional reasonable person and B) pulling apart "the situation and the group" to poke at the details.

Or it is for me, but I'm also trying to start "Deep Dive Threads" to actually try and pull apart issues. I've got a few successes, one recently I got a model that describes a couple of important points (character/player-story/challenge focus) that I am proud of. I'm still bouncing around ideas for the next one. So far I got a question about switching systems I might through out there, still working on it, things have been busy.

[Delta]

Which fits the 2nd definition of Experiment:
Try new things and see how it goes. (Paraphrased, obviously.)

...

But this is one of those threads where people start spouting opinions and try to assert why their preference is objectively correct while the occassional reasonable person comes through to say that it depends on the situation and the group. The endless cycling of threads like these is why I so rarely post anymore. In most threads I know exactly what I'm going to see. This is it.

No, the problem started when Quertus spouted his opinion that he, if he has played in any significant number of groups, knows full well would be seen as extremely odd at best, disruptive and a breach of social contract at worst, and declared everyone who wasn't able to see his way of doing things was so clearly superiour to be complete idiots unable to understand the first thing about human behaviour (and even those who do understand move only one rung up to "idiots who at least are able to see they're complete idiots unable to play the game correctly"). I would wager in the vast, vast majority of groups, players keeping secrets from the GM would not be seen as acceptable (as very clearly indicated by the overwhelmingly one-sided reactions in this very thread)

(And his "experiment" was not even "Try new things and see how it goes", since he had no interest in "seeing how it goes", he had exactly one desired result and made sure that's what would happen. That doesn't even clear the very low bar of the 2nd definition you used, that's just trying to show off)

Yeah, that kind of behaviour leads to somewhat heated reactions regardless of topic, that shouldn't be a huge surprise for someone who knows something about typical human behaviour.

[Cluedrew]

To Delta: I have gone back and forth with Quertus on a lot of issues and I have discovered several important facts about him:

1. He's weird.
2. He is aware of that.
3. Not usually in a bad way.

Also I am a GM who lets players not tell me their character's secrets (if I know the player). I wouldn't recommend it to them because most have fallen flat, but if they want to try they may. Which is a completely different reason than most other people.

I just had a bunch of ideas about how that aligns with player-story focused and Quertus's view aligns with character-story focused and... I think the general view is not actually connected to anything in the focus model, just minimize the risk of disruption.

[Tanarii]

Quertus isn't talking about doing the Stanford Prison Experiment, here.

That's exactly what his "experiment" brings to mind, in terms of ethics and morality, and in terms of a total lack of understanding of what qualifies as experimental process.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That's exactly what his "experiment" brings to mind, in terms of ethics and morality, and in terms of a total lack of understanding of what qualifies as experimental process.

Plus a strongly desired outcome in which the experimenter has a personal stake. Scientists who too closely identify with their theory make bad science.

[Delta]

To Delta: I have gone back and forth with Quertus on a lot of issues and I have discovered several important facts about him:

1. He's weird.
2. He is aware of that.
3. Not usually in a bad way.

Also I am a GM who lets players not tell me their character's secrets (if I know the player). I wouldn't recommend it to them because most have fallen flat, but if they want to try they may. Which is a completely different reason than most other people.

Honestly, if a player came to me during session 0 and said "Hey, how about we try maybe everyone keeping one piece of background information secret from everyone, including the GM?" I might even be up for that. But I think everyone can agree that this is most definitely not standard behaviour for almost every group out there, a player showing up and expecting this kind of thing to just to be okay would be disappointed in literally every group I've ever played in.

And I know Quertus is well aware of him being weird, but a lot of the stuff he's been writing here has been flat out insulting to the point of just falling short of directly calling anyone not agreeing with him complete idiots, it's just that he's obviously smart enough to phrase the insults so he cleverly avoids words that would draw a moderator's attention. That's just not okay in my opinion and at least in that case, it's definitely weird in a bad way because instead of enabling a potentially interesting discussion about a weird idea he brought up, he's killing most of it through the way he's presenting and defending it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

And I know Quertus is well aware of him being weird, but a lot of the stuff he's been writing here has been flat out insulting to the point of just falling short of directly calling anyone not agreeing with him complete idiots, it's just that he's obviously smart enough to phrase the insults so he cleverly avoids words that would draw a moderator's attention. That's just not okay in my opinion and at least in that case, it's definitely weird in a bad way because instead of enabling a potentially interesting discussion about a weird idea he brought up, he's killing most of it through the way he's presenting and defending it.

Agreed. The sense of "I'm sooo much smarter than you, and unless you agree with me you're stupid" is strongly off-putting. Whether intentional or not, that's what's coming across to me. Combined with a perceived disregard for the opinions and fun of others, it's a recipe for toxic conversations.

[Quertus]

We're cool now^^ I think we've reached a satisfactory understanding.

To Delta: I have gone back and forth with Quertus on a lot of issues and I have discovered several important facts about him:

1. He's weird.
2. He is aware of that.
3. Not usually in a bad way.

LoL. 'Tis a fair cop.

Also I am a GM who lets players not tell me their character's secrets (if I know the player). I wouldn't recommend it to them because most have fallen flat, but if they want to try they may. Which is a completely different reason than most other people.

For it to "fall flat" implies the likelihood of some purpose(s) beyond mine.

I just had a bunch of ideas about how that aligns with player-story focused and Quertus's view aligns with character-story focused and... I think the general view is not actually connected to anything in the focus model, just minimize the risk of disruption.

I'll agree that my stance is consistent with my character-focused mindset.

I think that the "general view" is based on a misunderstanding of my words, and fears, whether caused by internet stories or personal experience, that are largely unfounded IME.

Are you seriously trying to nitpick what is or isn't manipulation? Because that raises red flags with there.

I don't remember reading the story you're talking about, and I'm not going to go back through a long thread to find it. From what you're saying here, though, he informed the other players, which sure doesn't sound like something he could do without them being aware of it.

Sorry, didn't say it was from this thread - only explaining that it isn't my story, but I believe I stated all the relevant details.

So, when I informed the group that OOC information affects the way that the characters are played, and I informed the group about my play style preferences, and they consented to secrets, you have no issue, right?

So, now that we've had some practice with our words, you have no issues, right?

[Cluedrew]

To Delta: I agree with the first part (except for the literally every bit). For the second I don't recall any direct insults but I suppose I could have missed some. More importantly, since we have been talking about human failings there is one I would like to mention: The tendency to get defensive when you feel you are under attack. And some people have really been tearing into Quertus this thread. Some with good points, but still an excess of aggression a lot of times. And other times just aggression. I don't remember how the cycle got started, but you need at least two sides to keep that back and forth going.

I'm getting kind of preachy here, which makes me a bit uncomfortable because I've probably messed this up myself, maybe even in this thread. But I think we can agree that this is too emotionally charged to make much progress right now.

(Although ironically in the post that has I have been hemming and hawing over how to put this, Quertus seems to of ignored it. Also will reply to your replies Quertus when I have time.)

[Delta]

I'm getting kind of preachy here, which makes me a bit uncomfortable because I've probably messed this up myself, maybe even in this thread. But I think we can agree that this is too emotionally charged to make much progress right now.

At least that's what we can agree on, which is why I stopped responding to Quertus's posts a while ago. To the rest: I think PhoenixPyre summed up my impression of Quertus in this thread perfectly only a couple posts ago, and I feel like when someone behaves like that, aggressive reactions are to be expected and well deserved.

[Quertus]

Plus a strongly desired outcome in which the experimenter has a personal stake. Scientists who too closely identify with their theory make bad science.

You assume incorrectly regarding what I would like the results of the experiment to be. I have a strong desire to game with people sufficiently inhuman as to lack human failings. Regrettably, despite testing for such, I have never found such a group. My scientific integrity is intact.

Honestly, if a player came to me during session 0 and said "Hey, how about we try maybe everyone keeping one piece of background information secret from everyone, including the GM?" I might even be up for that. But I think everyone can agree that this is most definitely not standard behaviour for almost every group out there, a player showing up and expecting this kind of thing to just to be okay would be disappointed in literally every group I've ever played in.

I have rarely encountered groups where every piece of background information being secret was a problem. So, while I agree that "one piece of background information secret" is not standard behavior, my experience regarding where standard lies is at the opposite end of the spectrum than you imply.

And I know Quertus is well aware of him being weird, but a lot of the stuff he's been writing here has been flat out insulting to the point of just falling short of directly calling anyone not agreeing with him complete idiots, it's just that he's obviously smart enough to phrase the insults so he cleverly avoids words that would draw a moderator's attention. That's just not okay in my opinion and at least in that case, it's definitely weird in a bad way because instead of enabling a potentially interesting discussion about a weird idea he brought up, he's killing most of it through the way he's presenting and defending it.

Multiple posters who have understood what I'm describing have also stated that what I'm talking about should be obviously true to everyone - I'm just stating that, IME, that isn't true, and some people are actually less aware of human behavior than some Playgrounders believe is humanly possible.

Different groups have different considerations; thus, "agree with me" is the meme of the idiot GM who cannot comprehend multiple ways of doing things / multiple types of fun, that would enforce bad policies, not of me, who is advocating discussing with the GM how to accommodate everyone's fun. Please don't insult me by lumping me with those fools at the opposite end of the openmindedness spectrum.

Agreed. The sense of "I'm sooo much smarter than you, and unless you agree with me you're stupid" is strongly off-putting. Whether intentional or not, that's what's coming across to me. Combined with a perceived disregard for the opinions and fun of others, it's a recipe for toxic conversations.

Another paragraph of concentrated misconception. The internet is not my most conducive conversational medium, it seems.

What part of discussing to maximize the fun of everyone makes it sound like I disregard the fun of others? What part of advocating practice sessions to allow people to make informed decisions regarding what they find fun makes it sound like I disregard the fun of others? Shouldn't you be more worried about those who argue against me on those points?

What part of discussing with the group makes it sound like I disregard the opinions of others? Shouldn't you be more concerned about those who aren't interested in discussing this idea with me, and flatly state that their way is right?

(Although ironically in the post that has I have been hemming and hawing over how to put this, Quertus seems to of ignored it. Also will reply to your replies Quertus when I have time.)

Sorry, I missed something important from you? Please, reiterate / copy and paste. I will endeavour to be more attentive.

[Satinavian]

So, when I informed the group that OOC information affects the way that the characters are played, and I informed the group about my play style preferences, and they consented to secrets, you have no issue, right?

Yes, that should obvious.

Strange how the little matter of informed consent can change the whole morality of a situation, isn't it ?

[ImNotTrevor]

That's exactly what his "experiment" brings to mind, in terms of ethics and morality, and in terms of a total lack of understanding of what qualifies as experimental process.

Hyperbolic comparison in the extreme.

Thats like saying rude service from the McDonalds employee puts you in mind of genocidal death camps.


And again:
You're applying a bizarrely rigorous standard to a very unofficial attempt to see how people react.


It's weirdly dogmatic for a field that is normally fairly tempered.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I just want to apologize to Quertus and to anyone else I may have attacked. I got way too personally heated in my reactions to this topic. I'll bow out and do my best not to repeat the offense.

[Darth Ultron]

Agreed. The sense of "I'm sooo much smarter than you, and unless you agree with me you're stupid" is strongly off-putting. Whether intentional or not, that's what's coming across to me. Combined with a perceived disregard for the opinions and fun of others, it's a recipe for toxic conversations.

It's like reading the text in a mirror.